Cited by 45Radiation Dose and ImagingAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesRadiology practices and education

Patient dose monitoring and the use of diagnostic reference levels for the optimization of protection in medical imaging: current status and challenges worldwide

Open access
Järvinen, Hannu, Vassileva, Jenia, Samei, Ehsan, Wallace, Anthony, Vano, Eliseo, Rehani, Madan·2017·Journal of Medical Imaging

Abstract

Optimization is one of the key concepts of radiation protection in medical imaging. In practice, it involves compromising between the image quality and dose to the patient; the dose should not be higher than necessary to achieve an image quality (or diagnostic information) needed for the clinical task. Monitoring patient dose is a key requirement toward optimization. The concept of diagnostic reference level (DRL) was introduced by the International Commission on Radiological Protection as a practical tool for optimization. Unfortunately, this concept has not been applied consistently worldwide. To review the current strengths and weaknesses worldwide and to promote improvements, the International Atomic Energy Agency organized a Technical Meeting on patient dose monitoring and the use of DRLs on May 2016. This paper reports a summary of the findings and conclusions from the meeting. The strengths and weaknesses were generally different in less-developed countries compared with developed countries. Possible improvements were suggested in six areas: human resources and responsibilities, training, safety and quality culture, regulations, funding, and tools and methods. An overall conclusion was that radiation protection requires a patient-centric approach and a transfer from purely reactive to increasingly proactive optimization, whereby the best outcome is expected from good teamwork.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1117/1.jmi.4.3.031214

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Järvinen, H., Vassileva, J., Samei, E., Wallace, A., Vano, E., & Rehani, M.
Affiliations
  • Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (FI)
  • International Atomic Energy Agency (AT)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (AU)
  • Universidad Complutense de Madrid (ES)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
Journal of Medical Imaging
Published
2017-10-04
Volume
4
Issue
03
Pages
1-7
ISSN
  • 2329-4302 (ISSN-L)
  • 2329-4310
OpenAlex
W2764147527
Cited by
45
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of medical imaging (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • STM:n Hallinnonalan avoin julkaisuarkisto (Julkari) (submittedVersion)
Funders
International Atomic Energy Agency
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
Keywords
patient dose monitoring, diagnostic reference levels, radiation protection optimization, diagnostic imaging, ICRP, International Atomic Energy Agency, quality culture, radiation protection regulation, developing countries

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review